Vernard J. Pearsey v. FCI-Schuylkill, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Vernard J. Pearsey leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his complaint concerning allegedly delayed or inadequate medical care for lupus while incarcerated at FCI-Schuylkill. The court dismisses the state-law medical malpractice and negligence claims, dismisses FCI-Schuylkill with prejudice and Warden Rickard without prejudice, and permits the Eighth Amendment Bivens claims against the remaining defendants to proceed subject to amendment.

Holdings

1. Medical malpractice and medical negligence claims are not cognizable under Bivens because they are state-law tort claims rather than constitutional challenges; those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
2. FCI-Schuylkill, a federal facility rather than a federal official, cannot be a defendant in a Bivens action; claims against it were dismissed with prejudice.
3. The complaint failed to state a Bivens claim against Warden Rickard because it alleged no personal involvement and could not rely solely on respondeat superior; claims against Rickard were dismissed without prejudice.
4. The Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Rishel, Baybel, Fahringer, and Bartol survived initial screening.
5. Pearsey was granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint before service, and any amended complaint must include all claims, including those that survived screening.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated Bivens claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether medical malpractice and medical negligence claims may proceed as Bivens constitutional claims.
3. Whether FCI-Schuylkill may be sued as a defendant in a Bivens action.
4. Whether the complaint adequately alleged personal involvement by Warden Rickard or impermissibly relied on respondeat superior.
5. Whether the plaintiff should receive leave to amend before service.

Disposition

other